Collision: 'Bump' or Explosion?

[Loekii]

Looking at the new screenshots (http://www.startrekonline.com/screenshots), I start thinking about the Klingon ship striking the asteroids, and how various games have handled collision.

I think the 'worst' way is to have no collision (ie you pass through the object). The second worse is to simply 'bump' and stop (like bumper cars).

What I would like to see in STO is to actually see you take damage and redirection. For example, if you were to clip an asteroid with your left nacel, you should take heavy damage and be sent spiraling to the right. If you slam into it nose first, you should basically take critical damage and explode, like the game Asteroids.

[LordDave]

What about having your helmsman do evasive action and attempt to avoid it?

[Loekii]

What about having your helmsman do evasive action and attempt to avoid it?

That is good as well.

I just dont' want to see 'pass through' or 'bumper cars'.

[Bamf]

Let's go with what is most realistic as possible.

Shields, to some extent, deflect physical mass. This, in combination with evasive maneuvers, can act in a manner similar to bumper cars. However, full head on collisions is something which should be simulated realistically. Going head on into an asteroid/other ship should result in critical/fatal damage. If it didn't, i fear people will be careless and much less reserved with their ships. No captain would take a large ship into thick asteroids, unless a shuttle scouted ahead to find a safe route. We should be encouraged to take care of our vessels, and find safe routes, instead of being inclined to take them into a thick asteroid field because the cost of colliding into any object is a simple 'bump' resulting in little to no damage.

[Paulo999]

bump or explosion? hmmm explosion all the way :D

[JeanNYGUARD]

Looking at the new screenshots (http://www.startrekonline.com/screenshots), I start thinking about the Klingon ship striking the asteroids, and how various games have handled collision.

I think the 'worst' way is to have no collision (ie you pass through the object). The second worse is to simply 'bump' and stop (like bumper cars).

What I would like to see in STO is to actually see you take damage and redirection. For example, if you were to clip an asteroid with your left nacel, you should take heavy damage and be sent spiraling to the right. If you slam into it nose first, you should basically take critical damage and explode, like the game Asteroids.


Totally agree.

Realism is key.

They had the bump feature in Star Trek Legacy... and The Trek Gaming community wasnt happy at all. I think their trying to mod the game to change collisions.

Personally I played Legacy... the collisions really took away from the game. After my ship and another were dueling it out and we ended on top of each other... we simply bumped off ... few min after that I shut off the game.

[SiskoBell]

Looking at the new screenshots (http://www.startrekonline.com/screenshots), I start thinking about the Klingon ship striking the asteroids, and how various games have handled collision.

I think the 'worst' way is to have no collision (ie you pass through the object). The second worse is to simply 'bump' and stop (like bumper cars).

What I would like to see in STO is to actually see you take damage and redirection. For example, if you were to clip an asteroid with your left nacel, you should take heavy damage and be sent spiraling to the right. If you slam into it nose first, you should basically take critical damage and explode, like the game Asteroids.


Realistic collision would be good for immersion. Small glancing collisions should be handled as such, with redirection and appropriate damage. That is, with shields = minor damage. Without shields = major damage.

Full speed head on collisions into (massive) objects should probably get you hull breaches, destroyed systems, and yes, perhaps explosions.

[Sherp]

Let's also keep in mind the relative strength of modern shields. The amount of energy that gets thrown around in combat by phasers, disruptors, and various torpedoes is simply breathtaking, and shields are designed to be able to take quite a few hits from those before failure.

That said, a big ol' asteroid is going to have quite a bit of kinetic energy and momentum even if it's not moving very fast, and starships at impulse are usually moving at significant fractions of the speed of light. I wouldn't expect a single asteroid collision to cripple a ship, but I would expect to see it show up as a strong hit against the shields. Plowing through an asteroid field with big rocks bouncing off your shields would not be an advisable course of action...but you're hardly going to be crippled by one hit.

[naynayz]

I think that we as a whole will be about as good as we drive our cars LOL

[k.mpok]

You are not the only one that is hoping for collision damage.

I personally am hoping that collision will effect your shields, followed by hull damage (if shields are down/out). I am also hoping that ship size and speed will effect the damage as well.

I CAN NOT and WILL NOT live with a tiny ship IE Defiant crashing into a larger ship IE Neg'Var and both take equal/similar damage.

[whatinblueblazes]

I would love to see realistic collision in the game, or at least true to the way it has been portrayed in the series.

A couple of times throughout TNG and DS9, we saw ships bouncing off of one another's shields in a way that likely drained the shield but didn't cause critical damage to the ships themselves. I think that collisions at shallow angles by shielded vessels should be handled in a non-lethal fashion.

I would love to see unshielded collisions cause near-catastrophic damage to both vessels, along the lines of what we saw in Nemesis or in some episodes of the various series. That would make collision attacks a maneuver of desperation, rather than a viable strategy for owning other players in PvP.

[DanSeale]

4 Things:

1. Deflector dish ?
2. Shields?
3. bump for smaller ones
4. depending upon speed of your ship and the asteroid .. damage.

[SelorKiith]

Not be to realistic (would take a whole lot more computation power of your PC) but make it Like Bridge Commander... small hits causes a bit damage... ramming your Defiant into a Cube get's him more or less no damage but you were a bit bumping of and exploding ^^

[Raven0238]

As far as static objects, like asteroids, I think a Speed:Size ratio should be considered. If you gently bump into an asteroid, let it bump off, but if your going to ram into it, then expect a nice boo boo.

[DanSeale]

As far as static objects, like asteroids, I think a Speed:Size ratio should be considered. If you gently bump into an asteroid, let it bump off, but if your going to ram into it, then expect a nice boo boo.

hehehe

YUP !

plus most ships have deflector dishes as well ... Still if you smack a big one at max impulse ... OUCH !
:eek:

[Raven0238]

hehehe

YUP !

plus most ships have deflector dishes as well ... Still if you smack a big one at max impulse ... OUCH !
:eek:

Exactly, deflectors can only handle so much.

[Skelly]

Definately have collision damage. That was a major let down in SWG. Collision damage make astroid fields a usable combat tactic. Smaller ships can use them to there advantage if being presude by a larger ship.

[Vicelance]

I would like collision damage but I would be satiisfied as long as we didn't pass through objects especially other ships when engaged in combat.

Personally I think that your helm officer should simply take control of the ship if you are about to colide with something and steer themselves. Though this would have the effect of making asteriods useless in fights and ramming impossible since the computer wouldn't let you hit the objects.

[Drunk1n]

I agree, damage should occur.

I did want to point out that in Insurrection when Riker aimed the Enterprise at the Son'as' ships they had shields up (both of them) but they were worried that the collision would occur. This to me means that the deflector field will deflect space junk particles (dust, pebbles... 10 foot rocks, debris from other ships, etc.) but not anything like an asteroid or another ship. They have way to much momentum to just be deflected, unless the angle is extremely shallow - say 1-2%. In regards to the quantity of dmg, something rams your ship you get hull breaches, with hull breaches comes damaged systems, the bigger the hit the more systems that go out - possibly destroying you in one hit. Now it isn't like an asteroid or ship (ignoring cloaking) is going to sneak up on you - so ramming an asteroid either means you are IN an asteroid belt (a tight one), a very bad driver, or the asteroid belt is being steered and can ram you itself (that is impossible so forget it). All starships have an extensive series of scanners to prevent these, although accidents do happen, so it isn't likely to happen, although it should happen in the right situation and it should be extensive damage.

I will be very disappointed if I, or more importantly the asteroid, is just deflected in a collision.

[Interdictor]

Not a fan of universal collison damage - the potential for griefing is tremendous. Now, in PVP zones or instances? Maybe.

[Loekii]

Well with regards to 'friendly ships', they could simply have it so friendlies always miss each other -- ie they veer out of the way and avoid contact automatically (ie the two nav computers link and ensure a miss).

With regards to collision, it is not just about crushing damage, but also the inertial force. Even with Inertial Dampers, I don't think the crew could survive the G-forces of such a sudden stop.

[koshcu]

it depends on how accurate and quickly you can control your ship. Lag is a reality in MMO games just because of the worlds. If you can't accurately dodge things then realism has to take a back seat to what is going to actually work in a game.

Since we are fighting in a full 3d world and you can be shooting in any direction and you don't have a crew to really watch the ship direction carefully if you are looking in the wrong direction your ship could strike something and be destroyed when that would not have happened to a real ship.

I would like real collisions but have to accept that it just may not be feasible. Even if it is possible it may not be possible all the time. So sometimes you might be damaged and glance off or be destroyed but when the system is lagging you might bounce or go through. Hopefully people understand that lots of things that would be nice to have or possible in a single player game just doesn't work in an MMO.

[Azurian]

To me, the best realisitc collision system was in Star Wars: X-Wing Alliance. Where speed and angles of collisions were major factors in damage inflicted during collisions of ships of various sizes. For instance, a fighter at 1% speed colliding with a captial ship just did a insignificant bump. But going full speed would be suicide.

So this type of collision programing could be used in STO, where slight bumps isn't going to cause serious damage, but the faster you go, the greater the damage.

Not a fan of universal collison damage - the potential for griefing is tremendous. Now, in PVP zones or instances? Maybe.

Yeah, that's a disadvantage when it comes to a collision system, because you know there will be griefers and PvP guilds who won't hesitate to abuse this. Hopefully there will be a system in place that would prevent abuse.

[cocoa-jin]

The plain a simple head on collision with a ship obliterating explosion isnt immersive either. The whole idea...cliche...symbol of a ship exploding into nothingness when its "killed" or destroyed is just blah.

I'd liked to see glancing blows deflect the ships also, with pieces shorn off and the ship sent into a spin.

I'd like to see more head on collisions result in a catastrophic, ship obliterating explosions if its a much smaller ship slamming into a large ship. But if its relativly equal sized...or large ships have what I believe is a non-elastic collision. Where they collide, crumple, decelerate slowly(relativly), take damage over time...over the time of the collision, have small localized explosions ripple through the ship along the axis/vector of the collision as sections of the ship take damage sequentially as impact/force/damage cascades along the length of the ship.

The amount of damage would be based on mass and velocity. So the damage would be concentrated at the point of collision with the level of damage inflicted decreasing as you move away from the point of collision...but the more worse the collision the greater the extent of more severe damage will extend away from the collision point before it begins to decrease.

So one collision might cause 70% damage at the collision point and decrease to little to no damage at the far extreme of the ship. That 70% damage might extend only 1/5th of the ship's length before it begins decreasing. But a harder collision might have 90% damage near the point of collision and that 70% damage extending 1/3rd of length before decreasing with 10% damage at the far extreme of the ship.

More impact, the more damage and the farther it extends back....systematically damaging structural and ship systems as it extends along the length of the ship.

[dasbrooner]

Collision damage would be fun... BUT:

1. "Helpless science vessel at 12 o'clock captain!"
"RAM HIM!"

2. Consider the computational use for determining the collision characteristic on 1 asteriod, on one ship. Now an asteroid field, and a fleet? Brace for lag, not impact.

As much as "bump" dynamics look completely inane, and break flow, sometimes speed will have to come before realism. And I would really hate to rip the nacelles off my ship because I went afk for a bio break and hit someone.

B.

[cocoa-jin]

Collision damage would be fun... BUT:

1. "Helpless science vessel at 12 o'clock captain!"
"RAM HIM!"

2. Consider the computational use for determining the collision characteristic on 1 asteriod, on one ship. Now an asteroid field, and a fleet? Brace for lag, not impact.

As much as "bump" dynamics look completely inane, and break flow, sometimes speed will have to come before realism. And I would really hate to rip the nacelles off my ship because I went afk for a bio break and hit someone.

B.

Having a helpless science vessel slammed into your ship wouldnt be a walk in the park...the same force induced on the helpless science vessel would be induced on the ramming vessel too.

You'd only have to compute the collisions for those objects too massive to be diverted away by the deflection shield...and only when it hits you. Those asteroids diverted by the deflector can "bounce" off if needed.

Why take a bio break in an area with hazards...thats like saying you'd be mad if you took a bio break and got attacked in a PvP or hostile PvE area. If you did loose a nacelle the only person you ought to be mad at is the face you pass in the mirror during the bio break.

Take some responsibilty for competent operations in game...go some place safe while taking a bio break.

[Awarkle]

it would also pose real tactical fun for use of tractor beams and dragging your enemy around with you, i personally hope they just put in a system where if your flying along a collision warning alarm comes up the player than has the option of "avoid" or "hit" based on the skill of their navigator thus if you say have deana troi at your helm you would be forced to ram everything :D

but if you had say tom paris you could do some really fancy manovers.

[fatesoasis]

I think that the collision damage is a great idea but i think it should have a very light penalty. I don't think ships should blow up when a saucer section hits a nacelle but I do think it should count as a hit.

[k.mpok]

Not a fan of universal collison damage - the potential for griefing is tremendous. Now, in PVP zones or instances? Maybe.

Thats where tractor beams can come into play.

My small ship (getting rammed by your bigger ship) could try to use the tractor beam to push myself out of the way.

My bigger ship (getting rammed by your smaller ship) could use the tractor beam to push you away from my ship/

This would only be a viable option as long as you have the power that you can allocate to the trackor beams. Thus in a PvP combat situation were most of your power would be allocated to shields, wpns and possibly engines you would have less power you could use on the tractor beams.

[Voorhees]

Here is a good compramise on this situation. If every single time you bump something you get damage that is not a good method as you got to think about the griefers. Here is a good idea. allow collision damage. example if you have shields on it would reflect you but in return your shields go down by % like the show and depends on how hard you hit something and what you hit. Example If i rammed a borg cube at full impulse my front shields would take massive damage if not go all the way down. If I hit the same cube at the slowest speed possible then i would take less damage.

If the object is a friendly or a none attachable object then i just bounce off the object but does not push them.

The reason why i say not push them is because then i can push them into something dangerous but i would like to be able to push an enemy. Hehe. Reminds me let us use tractor beams.

[Voorhees]

Envirement objects is treated differently tho like asteroids I could hit them and it would effect my ship so it would be more challenging on flying.

[Loekii]

I am not really referring to ship to ship collisions (I think that evasive maneuvers in ST would prevent most such things).

What I am addressing is more the collision with asteroid or other large scale space objects. Shields help, but against an object 70% or greater your size, I just don't see it being a survivable collision -- let alone trivial.

In our oceans, a Tanker, Sub, Carrier, Destroyer, etc that slams into an iceberg tends to be compromised. Add to that if the collision occurred in a vacuum -- a baseball sized object crashing into the Space Shuttle is catastrophic.

[DJGietzen]

What I would like to see in STO is to actually see you take damage and redirection. For example, if you were to clip an asteroid with your left nacel, you should take heavy damage and be sent spiraling to the right. If you slam into it nose first, you should basically take critical damage and explode, like the game Asteroids.


Well, I do'nt want to see my 500 ton star ship go spiriling out of control becouse I hit a 400 ton asteroid. I would like to see a physics system be in place and some asteroids might go bouncing off my hull and the larger ones barely move. But for my ship to get tosed about something must be very wrong.

[Loekii]

Well, I do'nt want to see my 500 ton star ship go spiriling out of control becouse I hit a 400 ton asteroid. I would like to see a physics system be in place and some asteroids might go bouncing off my hull and the larger ones barely move. But for my ship to get tosed about something must be very wrong.

I can see your point, but I see the Asteroid as being more dense than a Starship, which tends to be hollow tubes and spaces with in a framework, rather than a solid mass.

Again, a very small object striking the Space shuttle or space station is devastating. A car striking a light pole totals the car. A ship hitting an iceberg sinks he ship. It is just unrealistic (and beyond the 'suspension of disbelief' theory) to think a Star Ship can crash into a solid object and survive with minimal damage.

Granted in the 25th century, they have a deflector shield, I don't see it being effective against large dense objects --- and striking such an object should be simply lethal.

[DJGietzen]

I can see your point, but I see the Asteroid as being more dense than a Starship, which tends to be hollow tubes and spaces with in a framework, rather than a solid mass.

Again, a very small object striking the Space shuttle or space station is devastating. A car striking a light pole totals the car. A ship hitting an iceberg sinks he ship. It is just unrealistic (and beyond the 'suspension of disbelief' theory) to think a Star Ship can crash into a solid object and survive with minimal damage.

Granted in the 25th century, they have a deflector shield, I don't see it being effective against large dense objects --- and striking such an object should be simply lethal.

No, for large dense objects you use your deflector shields or like in the shows, you don't fly into an asteroid field. Even still, if my starship gets tossed about my a big rock there is something wrong. I have manuving thrusters and the like.

What do you propose should happen when I get bounced from asteroid to asteroid?

[Loekii]

No, for large dense objects you use your deflector shields or like in the shows, you don't fly into an asteroid field. Even still, if my starship gets tossed about my a big rock there is something wrong. I have manuving thrusters and the like.

What do you propose should happen when I get bounced from asteroid to asteroid?

Like an accelerator and steering wheel in an Automobile, thrusters are not relevant once you have collided with a Light pole. Yes, you should avoid collision, but if collision occurs, it should be pretty lethal.

If you strike one asteroid and manage to survive it, but are driven into another, you probably should explode -- much like if you careen off one light pole into another, the car tends to be totaled and the occupants killed or seriously injured.

The point being, we should avoid such collisions, rather than playing 'bumper cars'.

[cocoa-jin]

Like an accelerator and steering wheel in an Automobile, thrusters are not relevant once you have collided with a Light pole. Yes, you should avoid collision, but if collision occurs, it should be pretty lethal.

If you strike one asteroid and manage to survive it, but are driven into another, you probably should explode -- much like if you careen off one light pole into another, the car tends to be totaled and the occupants killed or seriously injured.

The point being, we should avoid such collisions, rather than playing 'bumper cars'.

agreed! its simple...dont run into big things!